Search Results

For the management of lymphedema and other edema.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA for medical support stockings (Elvarex / Elvarex Soft / Elvarex Soft Seamless). This document does not include information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications for AI/algorithm-based devices.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria from the given text. This document is a regulatory clearance letter, not a clinical study report or a technical performance evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Elvarex garments are equivalent to the preamendment Jobst-Custom garments which are used for the same indications.

Consequently, they can be used to treat the same indications, i.e. CVI, edema, lymphedema, phlebitis and vascular malformations. The contraindications for the two products are also the same, i.e. significant arterial insufficiency, cutaneous infections. dermatitis in the acute phase. wet dermatosis and conditions in which venous and lymphatic return is not desired.

While Jobst-Custom garments are cut and sewn from fabric made of spandex and nylon varns, the Elvarex garments are flat knit using yarns made of nylon, natural rubber latex, cotton and spandex and then sewn together. Both products use the specific measurements for a patient and calculate the final garment dimensions using the LaPlace formula. Compression is provided for both products by large elastic yarns that act circumferentially on the limb. The gradient compression present with both products helps to force fluid into the deep venous system and in the return of Ivmphatic fluid.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Elvarex compression garments). It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting scientific studies with specific acceptance criteria, performance metrics, and detailed study methodologies as would be found in a clinical trial report for a novel medical device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories of information cannot be extracted from this document, as they are not present.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of quantitative performance metrics for the device itself. The acceptance criteria seem to be based on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to the predicate device in materials, mode of action, and indications for use, and a history of safe use.
• Reported Device Performance: The document states: "Elvarex has been on the market for several years in Europe and has an established track record. There have also been no reports of serious injury resulting from its use during the three year period assessed." This is a qualitative statement about safety, not a quantitative performance metric.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size: Not specified. The "three-year period assessed" refers to a retrospective review of safety reporting in Europe, not a formal study with a defined sample size for a test set.
• Data Provenance: European market data (retrospective safety reporting).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not applicable. There was no "test set" in the sense of a diagnostic or performance test that required expert ground truth establishment as typically understood in medical device studies. The assessment was based on market history and safety reporting.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable. There was no test set requiring expert adjudication.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• Not applicable. This is a compression garment, not an imaging or diagnostic AI device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

• Not applicable. This is a compression garment, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• The "ground truth" for the claims of safety and effectiveness appears to be derived from the "established track record" of the device in Europe and the lack of "serious injury reports" over a three-year period. This can be considered a form of retrospective outcomes data or post-market surveillance data regarding safety.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable. Not a machine learning or AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device